Those who lost the referendum - and, sadly, the media - keep saying thatall of the money was promised for the NHS. But that was NOT said on theside of the bus. And it is not my recollection as to what Vote Leavesaid. Checking back in the run-up to the referendum:

23 April 2016: 'We would also regain control over the £350m subscriptionwe pay Brussels every week. We could spend it on schools, the NHS, theenvironment, cutting the deficit-- the choice will become ours again.'(Gisela Stuart)

I.e. not all of it.

4 June 2016: "The government should use some of the billions saved fromleaving the EU to give at least a £100m per week cash transfusion to theNHS." (Gove and Johnson)

I.e. not all of it.

Were _you_ annoyed by Vote Leave at the time? If so, and you now claimthat all of it was for the NHS ... then you are just as dishonest. Ifnot more so.

Post by James HarrisThe big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it...

Of course not. They knew that the claim of £350 million a week wasfalse, so they couldn't promise that much to the NHS. However, that iswhat seemed to be implied and what most of the Leave voters who wereswayed by the slogan probably assumed they meant.

Immediately after the referendum, all mention of the claim and picturesof the bus disappeared from the Leave campaign web site, which seems tosuggest that they didn't want to be held to it.

The big red bus said "We send the EU A?350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it...

Of course not. They knew that the claim of A?350 million a week wasfalse, so they couldn't promise that much to the NHS. However, that iswhat seemed to be implied and what most of the Leave voters who wereswayed by the slogan probably assumed they meant.Immediately after the referendum, all mention of the claim and picturesof the bus disappeared from the Leave campaign web site, which seems tosuggest that they didn't want to be held to it.

But the Leave campaign never could be held to it. They are not thegovernment, the government never made any such promise, on thecontrary, their position was that the UK should remain in the EU.

Post by NightjarThat didn't stop them from making what appeared to the electorate to bepromises, such as the ??350 million a week to the NHS.

That's why I think we'll end up with a last minute Norwegian model.Maybe the 350MM couldn't be a promise but nor could 'take backsovereignty' (whatever that means), 'control imigration' (although TPTBwill activate what we could have done anyway and claim it's brexit)

About the only thing we can rely on for brexit is the result of anon-binding referendum to leave the EU.

Post by NightjarThat didn't stop them from making what appeared to the electorate to bepromises, such as the ??350 million a week to the NHS.

That's why I think we'll end up with a last minute Norwegian model.Maybe the 350MM couldn't be a promise but nor could 'take backsovereignty' (whatever that means),

Sovereignty rests with us, the British people. Our politicians have toask for our permission to rule. That stops them going off like Henry VIII!

But while we are in the EU our politicians also have another master: theEU. In fact, the EU is more powerful than we, the people, are. That isprofoundly wrong, anti-democratic, and dangerous. By taking backsovereignty our politicians will have just one master: us. And that'show it should be. This is simple but profound, and democracy is the keyto a nation being prosperous.

Post by Tim Woodall'control imigration' (although TPTBwill activate what we could have done anyway and claim it's brexit)About the only thing we can rely on for brexit is the result of anon-binding referendum to leave the EU.

Post by James HarrisThe big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it...

Of course not. They knew that the claim of £350 million a week wasfalse, so they couldn't promise that much to the NHS.

The Leave Campaign wasn't in a position to make any promises...

That didn't stop them from making what appeared to the electorate to bepromises, such as the £350 million a week to the NHS.

The irony is, it seems to be the remoaners who were actually the ones to'believe' this as they are the only ones demand the cash.Thick or what? :-)

:-) They didn't really believe it! The Remain side spent half thecampaign telling us all that it wasn't true. So they are beingdisingenuous to now claim it had any credibility. They are just irked!

I originally thought this was a bad idea and could not see why anyonewould write this on a bus, but of course we now know why - it was tokeep the idea that we send a lot of cash to the EU front and centre.

And it has worked better than they could have dreamed.

Post by James HarrisBTW, I can understand them being annoyed! But that doesn't give them theright to now claim something which they spent the campaign saying wasfalse.

Post by James HarrisThe big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it...

Of course not. They knew that the claim of £350 million a week wasfalse, so they couldn't promise that much to the NHS. However, that iswhat seemed to be implied

Agreed.

Post by Nightjarand what most of the Leave voters who wereswayed by the slogan probably assumed they meant.

Can you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

Post by NightjarImmediately after the referendum, all mention of the claim and picturesof the bus disappeared from the Leave campaign web site, which seems tosuggest that they didn't want to be held to it.

Looks to me as though their site is as dormant as a ghost town. But itstill carries the same message about the 350 million:

Post by James HarrisThe big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it...

Of course not. They knew that the claim of £350 million a week wasfalse, so they couldn't promise that much to the NHS. However, that iswhat seemed to be implied

Agreed.

Post by Nightjarand what most of the Leave voters who wereswayed by the slogan probably assumed they meant.

Can you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

Were Vote Leave really in a position to make this sort of promise? Andhave people all of a sudden become hopelessly credulous when it comes tothe claims of political campaigners? It's not like the government werehoping for a leave vote anyway, so why would anyone expect them tohonour this?

Post by NightjarImmediately after the referendum, all mention of the claim and picturesof the bus disappeared from the Leave campaign web site, which seems tosuggest that they didn't want to be held to it.

Looks to me as though their site is as dormant as a ghost town. But ithttp://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Post by James HarrisThe big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it...

Of course not. They knew that the claim of £350 million a week wasfalse, so they couldn't promise that much to the NHS. However, that iswhat seemed to be implied

Agreed.

Post by Nightjarand what most of the Leave voters who wereswayed by the slogan probably assumed they meant.

Can you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

Were Vote Leave really in a position to make this sort of promise? Andhave people all of a sudden become hopelessly credulous when it comes tothe claims of political campaigners? It's not like the government werehoping for a leave vote anyway, so why would anyone expect them tohonour this?

To a point I understand Remoaner exasperation but I don't think theyreally believe the public were taken in. And I think they are nowmilking this for all its worth.

Post by James HarrisThe big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it...

Of course not. They knew that the claim of £350 million a week wasfalse, so they couldn't promise that much to the NHS. However, that iswhat seemed to be implied

Agreed.

Post by Nightjarand what most of the Leave voters who wereswayed by the slogan probably assumed they meant.

Can you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

Were Vote Leave really in a position to make this sort of promise? Andhave people all of a sudden become hopelessly credulous when it comes tothe claims of political campaigners? It's not like the government werehoping for a leave vote anyway, so why would anyone expect them tohonour this?

To a point I understand Remoaner exasperation but I don't think theyreally believe the public were taken in. And I think they are nowmilking this for all its worth.

James Harris

==

They don't have anything else to pick on so that is why they are milking itto death.

I don't believe they are all so stupid as to believe what they are sayingbut they are certainly intent on looking it.

Post by James HarrisThe big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it...

Of course not. They knew that the claim of £350 million a week wasfalse, so they couldn't promise that much to the NHS. However, that iswhat seemed to be implied

...

Were Vote Leave really in a position to make this sort of promise? ...

No, which meant that they could promise anything they liked, safe in theknowledge that they would not be the ones who had to make the fantasiescome true.

The upset was about the amount of the claim, the £350 million, not thesuggestion that money we would no longer send to the EU could be spenton the NHS instead.

Certainly we have a shed load of Remoaners demanding that this amount ispaid up, anyway.

What on the other hand, and quite interestingly, I have never heard isany of these people saying "now we are all clear the actual net amountsent to the EU is nearer £160 million a week, I demand that is sent tothe NHS as promised".

It is always about the £350 million. And the demand *always* comes fromRemoaners, not Leavers.

Post by James HarrisCan you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

Were Vote Leave really in a position to make this sort of promise? Andhave people all of a sudden become hopelessly credulous when it comesto the claims of political campaigners? It's not like the governmentwere hoping for a leave vote anyway, so why would anyone expect them tohonour this?

Have you just begun to realise that those making the Leave propagandawould probably NOT be the ones who would be in a position to carry themthrough - and even if they were, might find them impractical orimpossible to implement?

Post by James HarrisCan you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

Were Vote Leave really in a position to make this sort of promise? Andhave people all of a sudden become hopelessly credulous when it comesto the claims of political campaigners? It's not like the governmentwere hoping for a leave vote anyway, so why would anyone expect themto honour this?

Have you just begun to realise that those making the Leave propagandawould probably NOT be the ones who would be in a position to carry themthrough - and even if they were, might find them impractical orimpossible to implement?

Not at all. I thought the whole thing was a pantomime from thebeginning, with claims coming from both sides that started out with themerely hyperbolic, evolving with the passage of time into thehysterical. On the day, I voted to remain, but I didn't have strongfeelings either way. Your life is what you make it. To believe thatthis is going to make or break anyone is to cede territory to the statists.

Post by James HarrisCan you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

Were Vote Leave really in a position to make this sort of promise? Andhave people all of a sudden become hopelessly credulous when it comesto the claims of political campaigners? It's not like the governmentwere hoping for a leave vote anyway, so why would anyone expect themto honour this?

Have you just begun to realise that those making the Leave propagandawould probably NOT be the ones who would be in a position to carry themthrough

No, of course he hasn't. He's just reminding people like you about it,since you seem to keep forgetting it.

My voting to remain should be ample evidence that I rejected thearguments of the Leave campaign.

If you weren't persuaded by the red-bus slogan then why would othershave been? The Remain side continually brings up that one slogan; it'sbecome a totemic issue for them. But I don't see any evidence that thosewho voted Brexit believed it any more than did those who voted Remain.

In fact, isn't it likely that some voted Remain because of Project Fear?

My voting to remain should be ample evidence that I rejected thearguments of the Leave campaign.

If you weren't persuaded by the red-bus slogan then why would othershave been? The Remain side continually brings up that one slogan; it'sbecome a totemic issue for them. But I don't see any evidence that thosewho voted Brexit believed it any more than did those who voted Remain.

In fact, isn't it likely that some voted Remain because of Project Fear?

James Harris

==

The Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Post by OpheliaThe Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Yes, they know what motivated Leavers. They can see in our minds. Andwhether its European peace, the UK economy or immigration they know whatthe future holds. Remarkable people. So much smarter than Brexiteers.And not at all delusional!

Post by OpheliaThe Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Yes, they know what motivated Leavers. They can see in our minds. Andwhether its European peace, the UK economy or immigration they knowwhat the future holds. Remarkable people. So much smarter thanBrexiteers. And not at all delusional!

The Remainers had an unfair advantage in that they were able to basetheir decisions on a situation that actually exists.

The Leavers had the distinct disadvantage of being obliged to base theirdecisions on a situation that doesn't exist, and instead had to rely ona lot of speculation, optimistic hopes - and (of course) pure,unadulterated patriotism.

Being a generous soul, in the event I'm tempted to say, "Didn't theLeavers do well!" - but I don't really think it would be appropriate.

Post by OpheliaThe Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Yes, they know what motivated Leavers. They can see in our minds. Andwhether its European peace, the UK economy or immigration they knowwhat the future holds. Remarkable people. So much smarter thanBrexiteers. And not at all delusional!

The Remainers had an unfair advantage in that they were able to basetheir decisions on a situation that actually exists.

Both arguments can be turned around. Leavers could also base anargument on the situation that exists, it's just that they didn't like it.

And remainers, too, did speculate about the future. Except that theirview of Britain outside the EU was a negative one.

I'd suggest that assessments of the present, and speculation about thefuture, featured strongly on both sides.

Post by Ian JacksonThe Leavers had the distinct disadvantage of being obliged to base theirdecisions on a situation that doesn't exist, and instead had to rely ona lot of speculation, optimistic hopes - and (of course) pure,unadulterated patriotism.

'Unadulterated' patriotism? You almost make it sound like an accusation :-)

Post by Ian JacksonBeing a generous soul, in the event I'm tempted to say, "Didn't theLeavers do well!" - but I don't really think it would be appropriate.

A couple of evenings ago, on Iain Dale's phone-in, a lady who was a 100%Brexitese would indeed have finished her contribution by singing RuleBritannia - and Iain Dale would have let her if it hadn't been that hewas running out of time.

A couple of evenings ago, on Iain Dale's phone-in, a lady who was a 100%Brexitese would indeed have finished her contribution by singing RuleBritannia - and Iain Dale would have let her if it hadn't been that hewas running out of time.

A couple of evenings ago, on Iain Dale's phone-in, a lady who was a 100%Brexitese would indeed have finished her contribution by singing RuleBritannia - and Iain Dale would have let her if it hadn't been that hewas running out of time.

Well, I wouldn't bother myself; but fair play to her :-)

I wonder if she actually knows all the words? When I were a lad, we usedto sing 'ayzh-ure main', and 'shall be slaves'. They seem to do itdifferently these days.

A couple of evenings ago, on Iain Dale's phone-in, a lady who was a 100%Brexitese would indeed have finished her contribution by singing RuleBritannia - and Iain Dale would have let her if it hadn't been that hewas running out of time.

Well, I wouldn't bother myself; but fair play to her :-)

I wonder if she actually knows all the words? When I were a lad, we usedto sing 'ayzh-ure main', and 'shall be slaves'. They seem to do itdifferently these days.

You mean she was intending to sing the whole thing? I certainly couldn't.

A couple of evenings ago, on Iain Dale's phone-in, a lady who was a 100%Brexitese would indeed have finished her contribution by singing RuleBritannia - and Iain Dale would have let her if it hadn't been that hewas running out of time.

Well, I wouldn't bother myself; but fair play to her :-)

I wonder if she actually knows all the words? When I were a lad, we usedto sing 'ayzh-ure main', and 'shall be slaves'. They seem to do itdifferently these days.

You mean she was intending to sing the whole thing? I certainly couldn't.

Post by OpheliaThe Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Yes, they know what motivated Leavers. They can see in our minds. Andwhether its European peace, the UK economy or immigration they knowwhat the future holds. Remarkable people. So much smarter thanBrexiteers. And not at all delusional!

The Remainers had an unfair advantage in that they were able to basetheir decisions on a situation that actually exists.The Leavers had the distinct disadvantage of being obliged to base theirdecisions on a situation that doesn't exist, and instead had to rely ona lot of speculation, optimistic hopes - and (of course) pure,unadulterated patriotism.

That is quite wrong because my decision to leave was also based on asituation that actually exists.

Neither leavers nor remainers can see the future for sure. we can onlyimagine how it will be. If though, as a remainer, your imagination tellsyou that the EU tomorrow will be the same as the EU today then it isgiving you a flawed picture of the likely future. The danger of a cock-sure attitude perhaps?

Post by Ian JacksonBeing a generous soul, in the event I'm tempted to say, "Didn't theLeavers do well!" - but I don't really think it would be appropriate.

Post by OpheliaThe Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Yes, they know what motivated Leavers. They can see in our minds. Andwhether its European peace, the UK economy or immigration they knowwhat the future holds. Remarkable people. So much smarter thanBrexiteers. And not at all delusional!

The Remainers had an unfair advantage in that they were able to basetheir decisions on a situation that actually exists.The Leavers had the distinct disadvantage of being obliged to base theirdecisions on a situation that doesn't exist, and instead had to rely ona lot of speculation, optimistic hopes - and (of course) pure,unadulterated patriotism.

That is quite wrong because my decision to leave was also based on asituation that actually exists.

Neither leavers nor remainers can see the future for sure. we can onlyimagine how it will be. If though, as a remainer, your imagination tellsyou that the EU tomorrow will be the same as the EU today then it isgiving you a flawed picture of the likely future. The danger of a cock-sure attitude perhaps?

Post by OpheliaThe Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Yes, they know what motivated Leavers. They can see in our minds. Andwhether its European peace, the UK economy or immigration they knowwhat the future holds. Remarkable people. So much smarter thanBrexiteers. And not at all delusional!

The Remainers had an unfair advantage in that they were able to basetheir decisions on a situation that actually exists.The Leavers had the distinct disadvantage of being obliged to base theirdecisions on a situation that doesn't exist, and instead had to rely ona lot of speculation, optimistic hopes - and (of course) pure,unadulterated patriotism.Being a generous soul, in the event I'm tempted to say, "Didn't theLeavers do well!" - but I don't really think it would be appropriate.

As long as we get a Brucie Bonus!

I'd like to add to your comments that it didn't need to be a blind vote.The UK and the EU could have worked up the outline of a pragmaticseparation agreement and put that to the British public: either Remain,or Leave on these terms. I would suggest that if the EU felt secure initself and the model it is imposing on Europe, or it it was a genuinefriend to the UK it would have been willing to do that. But if itbelieves it is a friend it is not so in any terms which we wouldunderstand. Instead, it wants to keep itself together by coercion.

Alternatively, the UK government could have said we would get tworeferenda: one on the principle and then, if we voted Leave, another onthe specific terms. But, likely fearing that that would make it too easyfor us to vote Leave in the first referendum, it explicitly ruled that out.

The public, therefore, had no choice but to vote blind. In the face ofthe propaganda and the scaremongering we were subjected to and thegreater uncertainty of the Leave option I am immensely proud of theBritish people for choosing the harder course. I expect history books tolook back on this time and recognise that the people took power backagain from the elite, and that the people were right.

If Scotland is going to have another independence referendum it has agolden opportunity that the UK as a whole did not have. Scotland canwait to see exactly how Brexit works out in practice. Then it can choosebetween two positions, both of which are not theoretical but realities.

Post by Ian JacksonBeing a generous soul, in the event I'm tempted to say, "Didn't theLeavers do well!" - but I don't really think it would be appropriate.

I wonder how many leave voters will be dead by the time we leave.Perhaps nearer the time we should strike these votes out and recount.

==

So, only the young and healthy voted to remain? It seems remainers know*everything* about leavers ... how and why they voted, what they actuallyvoted for, their level of education ... etc. etc. .... hmmm???

If remainers were as psychic as they think they are, why didn't theyforetell that leavers would win the referendum <g>

Post by Ian JacksonBeing a generous soul, in the event I'm tempted to say, "Didn't theLeavers do well!" - but I don't really think it would be appropriate.

I wonder how many leave voters will be dead by the time we leave.Perhaps nearer the time we should strike these votes out and recount.==So, only the young and healthy voted to remain? It seems remainers know*everything* about leavers ... how and why they voted, what they actuallyvoted for, their level of education ... etc. etc. .... hmmm???

We have some idea why they voted leave - about half of them to kick out the untermensche.

Opinion polling has discovered quite a strong age bias, however the samples are only in the region of 10,000, so whilst one standard deviation in the results is only 0.3%, but respondents lie so that is only a strong probability.

OTOH comparison of the census responses and the result by area analyses in excess of 25,000,000 data points and shows an extremely strong correlation between low educational attainment and leave voting - something Brexiteers alternately deny or deride depending which side of the bed they got out of that morning, but deep down they know it is both true and dismally sad.

Post by TMS320If remainers were as psychic as they think they are, why didn't theyforetell that leavers would win the referendum <g>

Post by Ian JacksonBeing a generous soul, in the event I'm tempted to say, "Didn't theLeavers do well!" - but I don't really think it would be appropriate.

I wonder how many leave voters will be dead by the time we leave.Perhaps nearer the time we should strike these votes out and recount.==So, only the young and healthy voted to remain? It seems remainersknow *everything* about leavers ... how and why they voted, what theyactually voted for, their level of education ... etc. etc. .... hmmm???If remainers were as psychic as they think they are, why didn't theyforetell that leavers would win the referendum <g>

Post by OpheliaThe Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Yes, they know what motivated Leavers. They can see in our minds. Andwhether its European peace, the UK economy or immigration they know whatthe future holds. Remarkable people. So much smarter than Brexiteers.And not at all delusional!

James Harris

==

They wish. They sound so stupid. The way they carry on about the 'moneypromised to the EU' it makes me wonder if they have any other argument. Dothey??

Post by OpheliaThe Remoaners are so clever! They know EXACTLY what we voted for and what wedid not. I wonder if they held a secret referendum!

Yes, they know what motivated Leavers. They can see in our minds. Andwhether its European peace, the UK economy or immigration they know whatthe future holds. Remarkable people. So much smarter than Brexiteers.And not at all delusional!

Many of those I've encountered elsewhere online have automaticallyassumed the worst possible reasons for my Leave vote, and refuse to bedissuaded even after I carefully explain what my reasons actually were.

Post by NightjarMy voting to remain should be ample evidence that I rejected thearguments of the Leave campaign.

But why were you paying any attention at all to the arguments of, of allpeople, politicians? Could you not make up your own mind, as I did? Ididn't bother listening to how anyone, in either camp, told me I shouldvote. I thought it was ludicrous that Corbyn, for all his other faults,was criticised for 'not giving enough guidance' to Labour voters on howthey should vote about Brexit.

What they could all usefully have done, and didn't, was to remind peopleof the solid facts available to support their positions. Things that theEU had actually done, good or bad. *Always* look at what people do, notwhat they say. All these 'opinion formers' actually did was tofantasise about the future.

Here's one example: Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is currently underdiscussion. There wouldn't *be* a Lisbon Treaty if the populations oftwo solid 'good European' countries hadn't voted against accepting theEU Constitution. The EU simply took the Constitution and reworked itinto a Treaty, which could not be accepted or refused by mere people.

*There* is a real EU action, firmly enshrined in the history books andundeniable. There are many others. The majority of them lead me toconclude that I don't want my country to associate with this gang ofliars and bandits. Nothing at all to do with 'what Nigel said', 'whatTony said', or any other of the empty posturings before the Referendum.

I can't believe that I was the only person in the country to actuallythink before I voted. Surely some others of you must have...

Post by NightjarMy voting to remain should be ample evidence that I rejected thearguments of the Leave campaign.

But why were you paying any attention at all to the arguments of, of allpeople, politicians? Could you not make up your own mind, as I did? Ididn't bother listening to how anyone, in either camp, told me I shouldvote. I thought it was ludicrous that Corbyn, for all his other faults,was criticised for 'not giving enough guidance' to Labour voters on howthey should vote about Brexit.What they could all usefully have done, and didn't, was to remind peopleof the solid facts available to support their positions. Things that theEU had actually done, good or bad. *Always* look at what people do, notwhat they say. All these 'opinion formers' actually did was tofantasise about the future.Here's one example: Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is currently underdiscussion. There wouldn't *be* a Lisbon Treaty if the populations oftwo solid 'good European' countries hadn't voted against accepting theEU Constitution. The EU simply took the Constitution and reworked itinto a Treaty, which could not be accepted or refused by mere people.*There* is a real EU action, firmly enshrined in the history books andundeniable. There are many others. The majority of them lead me toconclude that I don't want my country to associate with this gang ofliars and bandits. Nothing at all to do with 'what Nigel said', 'whatTony said', or any other of the empty posturings before the Referendum.I can't believe that I was the only person in the country to actuallythink before I voted. Surely some others of you must have...

As I've said before, since keeping the putative status quo was the mucheasier option to take it is likely that those who didn't know much aboutthe EU voted for what they saw as the safer option. Therefore, I wouldthink Brexiteers were generally better informed than Remainers. To voteto Leave was a big step into the unknown. People don't do that en masseunless they have looked at the pros and cons, as you did.

Post by James HarrisAs I've said before, since keeping the putative status quo was the mucheasier option to take it is likely that those who didn't know muchabout the EU voted for what they saw as the safer option. Therefore, Iwould think Brexiteers were generally better informed than Remainers.To vote to Leave was a big step into the unknown. People don't do thaten masse unless they have looked at the pros and cons, as you did.

While I'm sure that some Remainers DID indeed take the easy option, andsimply voted for the status quo, to conclude that Brexiteers voted toleave because they were better informed really IS a conclusion too far.[Was that guy in Sunderland who expected the return of shipbuilding andcoalmining better informed?]

If you'll excuse me for again referring to what I've heard radiophoners-in and media interviewees saying, quite a lot said that theysimply wanted OUT (plus more than a few "We've got our sovereignty back"and "Rule Britannia!") - but I've never heard any Remainers saying thatthey simply wanted IN. I wonder why?

Post by Ian JacksonIf you'll excuse me for again referring to what I've heard radiophoners-in and media interviewees saying, quite a lot said that theysimply wanted OUT (plus more than a few "We've got our sovereigntyback" and "Rule Britannia!") - but I've never heard any Remainerssaying that they simply wanted IN. I wonder why?

Probably because you only hear or remember what it suits you to hear orremember.

Post by Ian JacksonIf you'll excuse me for again referring to what I've heard radiophoners-in and media interviewees saying, quite a lot said that theysimply wanted OUT (plus more than a few "We've got our sovereigntyback" and "Rule Britannia!") - but I've never heard any Remainerssaying that they simply wanted IN. I wonder why?

Probably because you only hear or remember what it suits you to hear orremember.

I speak as one who often does hear what doesn't particularly 'suit me'.For example, as soon as the nightly 'The Archers' have finished, Iusually switch over to LBC to listen to at least part of Nigel Farrell's(literally) incredible pro-Brexit party-political phone-ins. I also hearhim on Sunday mornings.

As for remembering what suits me - well, I probably DO remember best themost notable and outlandish contributions from the phone-in callers.Fortunately, there are quite a lot of these, so even if I forget some ofthem, it isn't long before there are a few more to take their place.

Post by James HarrisAs I've said before, since keeping the putative status quo was the mucheasier option to take it is likely that those who didn't know muchabout the EU voted for what they saw as the safer option. Therefore, Iwould think Brexiteers were generally better informed than Remainers.To vote to Leave was a big step into the unknown. People don't do thaten masse unless they have looked at the pros and cons, as you did.

While I'm sure that some Remainers DID indeed take the easy option, andsimply voted for the status quo, to conclude that Brexiteers voted toleave because they were better informed really IS a conclusion too far.

If you do not believe leave voters are better informed then I amconcluding that is because you consider that remain voters were betterinformed instead - yet as James has just pointed out, it took quite aleap to vote against the status quo.

You can argue all you want that it was a leap through ignorance, butthat is not how referendums have *ever* worked before. If people areignorant, they simply do not vote or choose to vote for the status quoinstead.

So what for sure we cannot conclude is that remain voter were the oneswho knew the most. They might have of course, but we do not have anyevidence to support that stance.

Post by Ian Jackson[Was that guy in Sunderland who expected the return of shipbuilding andcoalmining better informed?]If you'll excuse me for again referring to what I've heard radiophoners-in and media interviewees saying, quite a lot said that theysimply wanted OUT (plus more than a few "We've got our sovereignty back"and "Rule Britannia!") - but I've never heard any Remainers saying thatthey simply wanted IN. I wonder why?

O'Brien was arguing on the radio this morning that a couple with anincome of over £100,000 can be "poor" and was commiserating with a manwho pays £4,000 a month in child care and mortgage payments and isworried that if an appliance breaks down he does not have the money toreplace it.

Off topic, but it shows what a nut job, London-centric, show it reallyis.

Post by Ian JacksonIf you'll excuse me for again referring to what I've heard radiophoners-in and media interviewees saying, quite a lot said that theysimply wanted OUT (plus more than a few "We've got our sovereignty back"and "Rule Britannia!") - but I've never heard any Remainers saying thatthey simply wanted IN. I wonder why?

O'Brien was arguing on the radio this morning that a couple with anincome of over £100,000 can be "poor" and was commiserating with a manwho pays £4,000 a month in child care and mortgage payments and isworried that if an appliance breaks down he does not have the money toreplace it.Off topic, but it shows what a nut job, London-centric, show it reallyis.

No, it shows what a nut job O'Brien is. He's so far left that he's gonecompletely round the bend.

Post by YellowO'Brien was arguing on the radio this morning that a couple with anincome of over £100,000 can be "poor" and was commiserating with a manwho pays £4,000 a month in child care and mortgage payments and isworried that if an appliance breaks down he does not have the money toreplace it.Off topic, but it shows what a nut job, London-centric, show it reallyis.

The sound like spoiled whiners! James O'Brien's show sounds like a formof torture to listen to!

BTW, as an alternative there is Julia Hartley-Brewer on at 10am eachweekday if you can get Talk Radio.

Post by YellowO'Brien was arguing on the radio this morning that a couple with anincome of over £100,000 can be "poor" and was commiserating with a manwho pays £4,000 a month in child care and mortgage payments and isworried that if an appliance breaks down he does not have the money toreplace it.Off topic, but it shows what a nut job, London-centric, show it reallyis.

The sound like spoiled whiners! James O'Brien's show sounds like a formof torture to listen to!

I sometimes put it on in the morning if I am having a late shower andRadio 4 has Woman's Hour on as that is not a show I generally enjoy.

Post by James HarrisBTW, as an alternative there is Julia Hartley-Brewer on at 10am eachweekday if you can get Talk Radio.

Post by YellowO'Brien was arguing on the radio this morning that a couple with anincome of over £100,000 can be "poor" and was commiserating with a manwho pays £4,000 a month in child care and mortgage payments and isworried that if an appliance breaks down he does not have the money toreplace it.Off topic, but it shows what a nut job, London-centric, show it reallyis.

The sound like spoiled whiners! James O'Brien's show sounds like a formof torture to listen to!

I sometimes put it on in the morning if I am having a late shower andRadio 4 has Woman's Hour on as that is not a show I generally enjoy.

Post by James HarrisBTW, as an alternative there is Julia Hartley-Brewer on at 10am eachweekday if you can get Talk Radio.

If it is on DAB then I should be able to get it. :-)

Yes, it is on DAB. Some of Julia's Brexit interviews have been classics!

Post by James HarrisAs I've said before, since keeping the putative status quo was the mucheasier option to take it is likely that those who didn't know muchabout the EU voted for what they saw as the safer option. Therefore, Iwould think Brexiteers were generally better informed than Remainers.To vote to Leave was a big step into the unknown. People don't do thaten masse unless they have looked at the pros and cons, as you did.

While I'm sure that some Remainers DID indeed take the easy option, andsimply voted for the status quo, to conclude that Brexiteers voted toleave because they were better informed really IS a conclusion too far.

If you do not believe leave voters are better informed then I amconcluding that is because you consider that remain voters were betterinformed instead

That is probably another conclusion too far - although it can't bedenied that Remain voters had existing experience to rely on.

Post by Yellow- yet as James has just pointed out, it took quite aleap to vote against the status quo.

The Leavers indeed boldly voted for what no man voted for before. Butdoes that necessarily make what they voted for a good idea?

Post by YellowYou can argue all you want that it was a leap through ignorance, butthat is not how referendums have *ever* worked before. If people areignorant, they simply do not vote or choose to vote for the status quoinstead.

Not necessarily. They might vote for what they think are quite obviously'the facts' - but these could, in reality, be more likeeasy-to-understand-and-digest, no ifs - no buts, alternative facts.

Post by YellowSo what for sure we cannot conclude is that remain voter were the oneswho knew the most.

You could say that the Remainers didn't have the sparkling, creativeimagination of the Leavers.

Post by YellowThey might have of course, but we do not have anyevidence to support that stance.

Post by Ian Jackson[Was that guy in Sunderland who expected the return of shipbuilding andcoalmining better informed?]If you'll excuse me for again referring to what I've heard radiophoners-in and media interviewees saying, quite a lot said that theysimply wanted OUT (plus more than a few "We've got our sovereignty back"and "Rule Britannia!") - but I've never heard any Remainers saying thatthey simply wanted IN. I wonder why?

O'Brien was arguing on the radio this morning that a couple with anincome of over £100,000 can be "poor" and was commiserating with a manwho pays £4,000 a month in child care and mortgage payments and isworried that if an appliance breaks down he does not have the money toreplace it.

I heard some of this, and it seems that you have generally misunderstoodwhat he was getting at.

Post by YellowOff topic, but it shows what a nut job, London-centric, show it reallyis.

It was really a discussion about why groups of people living in areasthat are not that far apart can have a typical difference of lifeexpectancy of up to 20 years.

Post by James HarrisAs I've said before, since keeping the putative status quo was the mucheasier option to take it is likely that those who didn't know muchabout the EU voted for what they saw as the safer option. Therefore, Iwould think Brexiteers were generally better informed than Remainers.To vote to Leave was a big step into the unknown. People don't do thaten masse unless they have looked at the pros and cons, as you did.

While I'm sure that some Remainers DID indeed take the easy option, andsimply voted for the status quo, to conclude that Brexiteers voted toleave because they were better informed really IS a conclusion too far.

If you do not believe leave voters are better informed then I amconcluding that is because you consider that remain voters were betterinformed instead

That is probably another conclusion too far - although it can't bedenied that Remain voters had existing experience to rely on.

Post by Yellow- yet as James has just pointed out, it took quite aleap to vote against the status quo.

The Leavers indeed boldly voted for what no man voted for before. Butdoes that necessarily make what they voted for a good idea?

Post by YellowYou can argue all you want that it was a leap through ignorance, butthat is not how referendums have *ever* worked before. If people areignorant, they simply do not vote or choose to vote for the status quoinstead.

Not necessarily. They might vote for what they think are quite obviously'the facts' - but these could, in reality, be more likeeasy-to-understand-and-digest, no ifs - no buts, alternative facts.

So let's step back again...

Now Remainers are informed because they know the actual facts whileLeavers are uninformed because they only know the 'alternative' facts?

Post by YellowThey might have of course, but we do not have anyevidence to support that stance.

Post by Ian Jackson[Was that guy in Sunderland who expected the return of shipbuilding andcoalmining better informed?]If you'll excuse me for again referring to what I've heard radiophoners-in and media interviewees saying, quite a lot said that theysimply wanted OUT (plus more than a few "We've got our sovereignty back"and "Rule Britannia!") - but I've never heard any Remainers saying thatthey simply wanted IN. I wonder why?

O'Brien was arguing on the radio this morning that a couple with anincome of over £100,000 can be "poor" and was commiserating with a manwho pays £4,000 a month in child care and mortgage payments and isworried that if an appliance breaks down he does not have the money toreplace it.

I heard some of this, and it seems that you have generally misunderstoodwhat he was getting at.

Oh no you don't. I heard what I heard and O'Brien was saying that you donot need to be on a low income to be poor (disposable income) and tohave been affected by his hobbyhorse of austerity.

Post by YellowOff topic, but it shows what a nut job, London-centric, show it reallyis.

It was really a discussion about why groups of people living in areasthat are not that far apart can have a typical difference of lifeexpectancy of up to 20 years.

Yes I know - and he was that most un-typical of UK places, SouthKensington, to "prove" his point that since 2010 (when the Tories gotin) even affluent people earning more than £100,000 a year have gone tohell in a handcart.

He was playing to his audience, telling them that people with loads ofmoney from a UK point of view but who are on the lower rungs in a placewhere an average house is £1.5 million are suffering this government tooand that he could feel their pain.

Post by YellowYes I know - and he was that most un-typical of UK places, SouthKensington, to "prove" his point that since 2010 (when the Tories gotin) even affluent people earning more than £100,000 a year have gone tohell in a handcart.He was playing to his audience, telling them that people with loads ofmoney from a UK point of view but who are on the lower rungs in a placewhere an average house is £1.5 million are suffering this government tooand that he could feel their pain.

and have an IQ so low that they can't work out that "moving house" is thesolution to their problem

Post by James HarrisAs I've said before, since keeping the putative status quo was the mucheasier option to take it is likely that those who didn't know muchabout the EU voted for what they saw as the safer option. Therefore, Iwould think Brexiteers were generally better informed than Remainers.To vote to Leave was a big step into the unknown. People don't do thaten masse unless they have looked at the pros and cons, as you did.

While I'm sure that some Remainers DID indeed take the easy option, andsimply voted for the status quo, to conclude that Brexiteers voted toleave because they were better informed really IS a conclusion too far.[Was that guy in Sunderland who expected the return of shipbuilding andcoalmining better informed?]

:-) - when I got to this point in your post I thought you'd been

Post by Ian JacksonIf you'll excuse me for again referring to what I've heard radiophoners-in and media interviewees saying, quite a lot said that theysimply wanted OUT (plus more than a few "We've got our sovereignty back"and "Rule Britannia!") - but I've never heard any Remainers saying thatthey simply wanted IN. I wonder why?

I see your point, and I agree such people may not have known much aboutwhat the future would hold. Who does? But couldn't they be either oldervoters who remembered life pre-EEC or they could know a lot about the EUand so want out of it?

By contrast, a number of Remain voters don't know the difference betweenthe EU and Europe. Or they think that Brexit is about not likingEuropeans. Or they think that Brexit is about the UK isolating itself.Or they think that Brexit will make us poorer in the long term. Or theythink that they won't be able to work and study in Europe. And so on.

My point is that while many (on either side) knew what they were votingfor (or voting against) there would have been quite a lot who didn'treally know much about it (e.g. there was a report that "what is the EU"topped internet searches just before the referendum) and for them,voting for "no change" would have seemed by far the safest option,especially given the media saturation by Project Fear in the run-up tothe referendum.

Post by James HarrisCan you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

I think that quite a lot of Brexiteers either totally believed it, orwere at least significantly swayed by it.

However, when anyone suggests that they might have been duped, it's onlynatural for some to say, "Who? Me? Duped? Of course I wasn't! How dareyou insult my intelligence!" [In the circumstances, I probably wouldmyself.] It's only rarely that you hear a "Yes - I admit was had".

Post by James HarrisCan you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

I think that quite a lot of Brexiteers either totally believed it, orwere at least significantly swayed by it.However, when anyone suggests that they might have been duped, it's onlynatural for some to say, "Who? Me? Duped? Of course I wasn't! How dareyou insult my intelligence!" [In the circumstances, I probably wouldmyself.] It's only rarely that you hear a "Yes - I admit was had".

You if they admit to being "duped" you win, and if they deny it, youerm.... win.

Post by James HarrisCan you back that up? I suspect not. ISTM it is sore losers who keepclaiming that Brexiteers believed it. But apart from those who promisedit I don't think many do or did. Did you believe it? No. Nor did othersensible people. So there's no point you keep pretending they did!

I think that quite a lot of Brexiteers either totally believed it, orwere at least significantly swayed by it.However, when anyone suggests that they might have been duped, it's onlynatural for some to say, "Who? Me? Duped? Of course I wasn't! How dareyou insult my intelligence!" [In the circumstances, I probably wouldmyself.] It's only rarely that you hear a "Yes - I admit was had".

So /you/ think that "quite a lot" were taken in by it but are now tooshy to say so...! How do you know what people think...? Isn't this justanother case of Remainers deluding themselves into believing the worldis as they would wish to see it?

Besides, the money is still being paid to the EU at the moment andJohnson, for example, has said he still expects the money to go to theEU - so I don't see why there should have been the sudden onset ofembarrassment that you claim exists.

Post by James HarrisThe big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fundour NHS instead".It did not say ALL of it.Those who lost the referendum - and, sadly, the media - keep saying thatall of the money was promised for the NHS. But that was NOT said on theside of the bus. And it is not my recollection as to what Vote Leave23 April 2016: 'We would also regain control over the £350m subscriptionwe pay Brussels every week. We could spend it on schools, the NHS, theenvironment, cutting the deficit-- the choice will become ours again.'(Gisela Stuart)I.e. not all of it.4 June 2016: "The government should use some of the billions saved fromleaving the EU to give at least a £100m per week cash transfusion to theNHS." (Gove and Johnson)I.e. not all of it.Were _you_ annoyed by Vote Leave at the time? If so, and you now claimthat all of it was for the NHS ... then you are just as dishonest. Ifnot more so.http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/gisela_stuart_exposes_the_risks_of_staying_in_the_eu.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36450749

As a fervent leaver, I am adamant we spend no more money on an ailing NHS!

We must, if we want a viable service. sort out the parasites at alllevels and the appalling waste and definitely end 'bed blocking'together with paying Mickey Mouse Money for drugs and treatments and theendless other inefficiencies.

Stop bloody silly programmes as Flu jabs when the efficacy, year afteryear is no more than 3%, but the actual death rate from these jabs NEVERpublicised though believed to be a lot higher than 3%! We kill peoplewith these programmes!

Let's get back to a culture where we don't fill up GPs surgerys' becausewe have a cold and me fucking leg is aching after a 22 mile marathon!

Someone told me last week, the NHS employ 1.2 million people, 700,000 ofwhom are clinically obese. Imagine the efficiency rate of the output ofthese people if they slimmed a little and the higher sickness rate thesefat fuckers impose on an already breaking system?

I'm also reliably informed, hordes of nurses leave because of bullyingfrom colleagues, nothing at all to do with unsocial hours or pay forthat matter! Can someone else, in the trade, confirm this?

Keep my money away from these people! They must sort out this monsterotherwise, without pumping more and more money.

The big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fund ourNHS instead".It did not say ALL of it.Those who lost the referendum - and, sadly, the media - keep saying thatall of the money was promised for the NHS. But that was NOT said on theside of the bus. And it is not my recollection as to what Vote Leave said.23 April 2016: 'We would also regain control over the £350m subscriptionwe pay Brussels every week. We could spend it on schools, the NHS, theenvironment, cutting the deficit-- the choice will become ours again.'(Gisela Stuart)I.e. not all of it.4 June 2016: "The government should use some of the billions saved fromleaving the EU to give at least a £100m per week cash transfusion to theNHS." (Gove and Johnson)I.e. not all of it.Were _you_ annoyed by Vote Leave at the time? If so, and you now claimthat all of it was for the NHS ... then you are just as dishonest. If notmore so.http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/gisela_stuart_exposes_the_risks_of_staying_in_the_eu.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36450749

As a fervent leaver, I am adamant we spend no more money on an ailing NHS!

We must, if we want a viable service. sort out the parasites at alllevels and the appalling waste and definitely end 'bed blocking'together with paying Mickey Mouse Money for drugs and treatments and theendless other inefficiencies.

Stop bloody silly programmes as Flu jabs when the efficacy, year afteryear is no more than 3%, but the actual death rate from these jabs NEVERpublicised though believed to be a lot higher than 3%! We kill peoplewith these programmes!

Let's get back to a culture where we don't fill up GPs surgerys' becausewe have a cold and me fucking leg is aching after a 22 mile marathon!

Someone told me last week, the NHS employ 1.2 million people, 700,000 ofwhom are clinically obese. Imagine the efficiency rate of the output ofthese people if they slimmed a little and the higher sickness rate thesefat fuckers impose on an already breaking system?

I'm also reliably informed, hordes of nurses leave because of bullyingfrom colleagues, nothing at all to do with unsocial hours or pay forthat matter! Can someone else, in the trade, confirm this?

Keep my money away from these people! They must sort out this monsterotherwise, without pumping more and more money.

Apparently the "experts" would rather thump chest and run empty mouthsthan go volunteer to help fix the problem, or maybe they don't reallyhave a fix after all.

"James Harris" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:otvoum$ei8$***@dont-email.me...: The big red bus said "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fund: our NHS instead".:: It did not say ALL of it.:: Those who lost the referendum - and, sadly, the media - keep saying that: all of the money was promised for the NHS. But that was NOT said on the: side of the bus. And it is not my recollection as to what Vote Leave: said. Checking back in the run-up to the referendum::: 23 April 2016: 'We would also regain control over the £350m subscription: we pay Brussels every week. We could spend it on schools, the NHS, the: environment, cutting the deficit-- the choice will become ours again.': (Gisela Stuart):: I.e. not all of it.:: 4 June 2016: "The government should use some of the billions saved from: leaving the EU to give at least a £100m per week cash transfusion to the: NHS." (Gove and Johnson):: I.e. not all of it.::: Were _you_ annoyed by Vote Leave at the time? If so, and you now claim: that all of it was for the NHS ... then you are just as dishonest. If: not more so.::: Refs.:::http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/gisela_stuart_exposes_the_risks_of_staying_in_the_eu.html:: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36450749::: --: James Harris: